Cliven Bundy

Friday, April 25th, 2014

If his “racist” comments, once played out in full and heard in context (below), are still awful and execrable but he’s in the right in his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management, then he’s still in the right.

On the other hand, if this full context reveals the racism accusations to be nothing more than a complete sham, but he’s in the wrong in his dispute, then he’s still in the wrong.

Conclusion: Those who side against him in the dispute, and invest their energy in masticating over these controversial remarks, must not have much faith in the actual argument. And I have to wonder why not. Bundy doesn’t own the land, and it seems he’s had his day in court over this matter. A stupid law is still a law. So why are racist comments even part of the discussion?

The answer is pretty scary when you think about it: We’re having a Constitutional Convention, an informal and improper one, without the state legislatures or Congress voting it into session. We’re using electronic messaging, selectively edited, to decide what rights are to be enjoyed by the citizens, based on the perceived character flaws of those who value the rights in question.

No, nobody calls it a “constitutional convention.” But that is the effect. Everything’s on the table, everything’s up for grabs. Feds, states, people, all their rights depend on who’s a racist and who isn’t.

In fact, it’s really quite a bit worse than that. The critics of Cliven Bundy do not care about Cliven Bundy. They seek to embarrass everyone who’s come to his defense, or merely hesitated to take sides against him. It’s message-politics; message, as in “that’ll show you.”

Which can mean only one thing: Whether the statists are right or wrong in this particular dispute — and my understanding of the details compels me to believe they are, initially, in the right and Bundy is wrong — they have no intention of stopping here. They want absolute and uncontested control. Even when a rational discussion of the facts of the dispute might conclude in their favor, they don’t want it. The forum isn’t right for them, for what they want to do. For that, they require scandal and character assassination. They’ve got something in mind they can’t achieve without those things.

I’ve said this before, re: the increasingly obvious effort to confiscate firearms — if they’re actually trying to provoke racial violence in America, this is a pretty efficient way to go about it.

I thought it was us conservative troglodytes who had this childish faith in American Exceptionalism. Seems to me its Our Betters who assume that the thing which have happened in analogous circumstances throughout history, all over the world, can’t happen here.

Right. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? Somebody deciding that, since the government and their propaganda organs are going to ruin his life anyway because he’s a badthinker, he might as well go out guns literally blazing? Or some Bible-thumping nut figuring out exactly why Koran-thumping nuts aren’t subject to the same constant drumbeat of abuse and humiliation for their beliefs, and doing likewise?

yup. By branding anyone who holds Unapproved Opinions a member of the White Christian Taliban, they are inadvertently calling that very thing into being.

As I said, I’m hard pressed to think of a more efficient way to guarantee racial and religious violence in this country. If it weren’t for that old saw about mistaking stupidity for malice, I’d almost think they planned it that way.

By branding anyone who holds Unapproved Opinions a member of the White Christian Taliban, they are inadvertently calling that very thing into being.

Exactly. They wouldn’t actually BE a Taliban (Harry Reid’s psychoses notwithstanding), but they would at the very least be forced to ogranize to resist the unjust aggression towards themselves. And wouldn’t you know it, there’s an Amendment for that, and a Declaration explaining why it was necessary for a free state.

Ask Bundy, or his conservative cheerleaders. Who could have imagined that a right-wing conservative secessionist who threatened armed resistance against law officers enforcing a valid court order would also be a racist? Quelle surprise!

mkfreeberg: We’re having a Constitutional Convention, an informal and improper one, without the state legislatures or Congress voting it into session.

Um, what are you talking about?

Severian: I’m hard pressed to think of a more efficient way to guarantee racial and religious violence in this country.